Christopher Reeve Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222939536
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Short Hills, NJ, USA
Phone
9733792690
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nerve, Muscle, Bone Diseases Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,618,426
Expenses
$16,432,299
Assets
$30,936,759
Liabilities
$1,538,812

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARGARET GOLDBERG (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARGARET GOLDBERG (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $346,983 total reported compensation
  • MARCO BAPTISTA (CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER): $284,934 total reported compensation
  • REGINA BLYE (CHIEF PROGRAM AND POLICY OFFICER): $210,293 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The christopher and dana reeve foundation is dedicated to curing spinal cord injury by advancing innovative research and improving quality of life for individuals and families impacted by paralysis.

What it reported doing in 2024

Over the past four decades, we have invested more than $140 million in groundbreaking research that has helped pave the way for progress. Now, as 21st century technology and cumulative scientific gains converge, we are on the cusp of a new era in spinal cord injury research. Today, the reeve foundation is helping to facilitate rapid scientific advancement with partnerships and initiatives that seek to: catalyze: channel resources into a robust clinical pipeline to rapidly increase the number of potential treatments. Energize: drive progress and investment in spinal cord injury research by addressing the barriers that limit ambitious engagement. Educate: increase transparency throughout the field, because success depends on shared knowledge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.3%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.2% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $14.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $347K · 32 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 158 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 146 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.